Point of Law : Surviving husband of the deceased has rightly made the application for issuing the Heirship Certificate in the name of his only daughter.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in CMA No. 409/2019 in connection with RFA No. 17/2019.

3. Brief facts of the case is that Sangkungi (L), who was the mother of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 had a land and a building thereon covered by LSC No. 102 of 1967 at Venghlui, Aizawl, Mizoram. After the demise of Sangkungi (L) on 18 January 2008 , her husband Thantluanga Zadeng applied for an Heirship Certificate on behalf of his daughter Smt. Margaret Malsawmkimi Zadeng (the respondent No. 1 herein) before the then Subordinate District Council Court (in short ‘SDCC’) Aizawl, Mizoram which was registered as Heirship Certificate Application No. 187 of 2008. The application was filed on 19.03.2008 and Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008 was instantaneously granted on 19.03.2008 in favour of the present respondent No. 1 in respect of the land covered under the LSC No. 102 of 1967. Thantluanga Zadeng then also died during 2008. Thereafter appellant preferred a First Appeal against the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008, which was registered as RFA No. 26 of 2018 and since it was filed beyond the period of limitation, a connected application for condonation of delay i.e. CMA No. 557 of 2018 was also filed. However, since the question was raised by the respondent for impleading her late father, Thantluanga Zadeng (late) as a necessary party, the First Appeal i.e. RFA No. 26 of 2018 was withdrawn by the appellant and the ld. First Appellate Court granted a liberty to file a fresh appeal, vide its Order dated 12.09.2019. Subsequently, a fresh appeal was filed by the appellant which was registered as RFA No. 17 of 2019. Since the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period, an application for condonation of the delay of 4196 days was also filed and registered as CMA No. 409 of 2019.

4. That the said CMA No. 409/2019 and RFA No. 17 of 2019 were thereafter dismissed with the impugned Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl, Mizoram. Being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2021 passed in CMA No. 409 of 2019 with RFA No. 17 of 2019 and also the impugned Order dated 19.03.2008 passed in Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008; the appellant preferred this second appeal.

5. This court on 01.12.2021, upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant who relied on the Apex Court decision rendered in Shyam Sunder Sarma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and Others, 2005 (1) SCC 436, formulated the following substantial question of law:

(i) Whether the ld. Trial Court could have come into a finding on questions of fact without any evidence being adduced.

(ii) Whether the Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008 could have been given to the Respondent No. 1 by the ld. Trial Court while there was a non-joinder of necessary parties.

(iii) Whether the Order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the ld. Trial Court for issuing the Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008 and the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the ld. First Appellate Court are based on evidence on record.

(iv) Whether the Order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the ld. Trial Court for issuing the Heirship Certificate No. 187 of 2008 and the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the ld. First Appellate Court are in contrary to the Mizo Customary Law or against the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014.

(v) Whether the First Appellate Court could have refused to condone the delay in filing the Regular First Appeal, regard being had to the explanation made by the appellant in his application for the delay in filing the appeal.

6. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel represent